PDA

View Full Version : A topic that should get Mole angry



Dajesus
04-06-2004, 10:59 PM
This is way left wing. There is a commercial running on TV that brought up an interesting point. They stated that the US has spent either 450 billion or 45 billion on the "Drug War" in the past 5 years. I know there is a huge differince in the 2, but either way that is a ridicouls amount of money. It was sponsered by a group that tries to make generic presciption drugs available.

No mole I don't beleave everything I see on TV, but having done papers on this subject before I know the number is pretty close to accurate. It doesn't however reflect the money that is spent keeping people arrested for drug use or sales in jale witch I would have assume would be a number in the 100s of millions.

I have to ask the question why? What has those billions of dollars done? I have worked with kids by volenteering for many differint things over the past 5 years I from what I unserstand they aren't having any trouble getting drugs. Also working in retail I have worked with many high school kids and college students, and they don't have any trouble finding drugs.

There has to be something else that money could go towards that the american people could actully see results after spending billions of dollars on. Like maybee health care, social security, now this is just crazy but what about education? Alot of us live in Florida witch is ranked 48th in country in education. I am curious if some of that money was spent on teachers, school supplies, and school programs if I could turn the news once and not here about a kid shot in the Ft. Myers area over drugs or gang related activity.

I could go on for hours about this subject, so I will stop now, and save some for replies.

iceblizzard69
04-06-2004, 11:46 PM
My friends get drugs so easily. I'm not a user but I know that it is very easy to get marijuana, cocaine, etc. The money spent on the "war on drugs" does nothing. Arresting users doesn't do much as well. The money would be better spent on rehab centers where they could help users quit, or many other things, such as making presciption drugs cheaper in the USA, education, etc.

Baz
04-06-2004, 11:56 PM
Being so close to Mexico, I experience first hand how easily drugs can be acquired. I apologize to anyone this may offend, but I can't see where this money is being spent. Not much has changed in one of the top states for drug use, violent crimes, and homocide, all of which are related to eachother. I agree with you one 100% Dajesus. If this money isn't going to be used for visible improvement, it would be best used on something more productive, such as education......

Dajesus
04-07-2004, 01:18 AM
Reagan was the one who really waged the current war on Drugs. Spending billions on the "war" while are econemy went to sh!t. I will give credit where it is due. I think the Dare program is a great program, but besides that I can't think of any other money eating action to rid our streets of drugs that has really had any affect. I think it is regressing if anything. I did use many drugs as a kid, but haven't touched them a crazy weekend Phish concert in the summer of '99. As a kid by 16 I could score just about anything I wanted, from weed to herroin. When I was 10-14 I hated anyone that I suspected did drugs. I was in the majority in that age group. 12 years later I hear of 11-14 year olds getting high all the time. If its on trash TV like Springer or hands on vulonteer work. I can only go by what I have sceen, but that seems like regression rather than progress, and we the tax payer our suffering for these misspent funds. I can't imagine being a parent, and having to send my kid to a school where said kid is neglected due to oversized class rooms while my tax money is used to fight this phantom war.

I think you have to look at Holland when you speak of this topic. They have very loose laws when it comes to drugs, and they have the one of the lowest violent crime rates in the entire world.

Muck
04-07-2004, 09:40 AM
But Holland is also one of the smallest countries in the world, whereas we are one of the largest. Things that work great in many countries simply cannot/do not work in this country simply due to sheer volume.

I agree that things aren't really that great as far as prevention and availability (meaning it's easy to find stuff). But I have to wonder how much more abundant the drug supply and use (along with crime rate, etc) would be without all this money that is currently being spent on the drug war. I really don't know because I have no idea what kind of results they're getting as far as seizures, arrests, etc. as a whole. But I do think about it.

Maybe it's time to do as Jessie Ventura said. Legalize the "small stuff" (marijuana), regulate it, and tax it. That way you eliminate the black market. And as long as people follow the rules (no use outside home, etc), things might be ok.

I'm not saying that's the answer. I really haven't given the topic and enormous amount of thought. And the US government historically doesn't seem to be to keen on cutting bait or admitting defeat/failure on something as publicized and backed as the drug war. But maybe it's a step in the right direction.

Also, in case this means anything, I've never once touched drugs in my life.

PhinPhan1227
04-07-2004, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Dajesus


I think you have to look at Holland when you speak of this topic. They have very loose laws when it comes to drugs, and they have the one of the lowest violent crime rates in the entire world.

Good idea, bad example. Personally, I'm in favor of decriminalizing dug USE, and legalizing marajuana. As far as pot goes, if we're going to allow cigaretts, it's just hypocracy not to allow pot. As for other drugs, treat it as a sickness, not a crime and it would DRASTICALLY reduce prison populations, and eliminate the "criminal factories" that prisons have become. Non-violent drug users go in, viloent drug users come out. Treatment facilities would be cheaper and more effective than prisons. As for Holland, yes there's little crime. But it's also has the highest per capita incidence of AIDS/STD's outside of Afica. That is NOT the model we want to emulate.

Scrap
04-07-2004, 11:32 AM
I don't think drug addiction is a sickness, but rather an ignorance. To call it a sickness would imply that I should feel sorry for people who have that addiction.The only people who I could feel sorry for are those who are forced to take a drug for some reason, and then become addicted.(Not the teenager who choses to experiment, because all of his friends are doing it.)

PhinPhan1227
04-07-2004, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Scrap
I don't think drug addiction is a sickness, but rather an ignorance. To call it a sickness would imply that I should feel sorry for people who have that addiction.The only people who I could feel sorry for are those who are forced to take a drug for some reason, and then become addicted.(Not the teenager who choses to experiment, because all of his friends are doing it.)

Actually I'd call it a weakness. They have found evidence that some people are bioloically more susceptable to drugs than others. I just never had an interest in drugs, so I never tried them. I don't think that's because I'm somehow superior to those who do, I'm just not wired that way. Bottom line however is that for whatever the reason, treatment/therapy has a MUCH higher success rate at ending recidivism than prison does. All a drug user learns in prison is how to commit worse crimes. Treatment is also MUCH cheaper than prison, which is of course why the companies that service the prison system are also some of the strongest lobbies AGAINST decriminalization.

dolphan39
04-07-2004, 01:17 PM
it is drug-related crime that is the main problem. Not the legalizing all drugs to eliminate the drug business w/b effective or consiencionable health-wise. I can see marijuana being legalized, but certainly nothing else. But it will never happen based on the current right wing political climate and president.

http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/T/tosh_legalb.jpg

Back the question at hand: the drug war has certainly been run irresponsibly w/o any accountability. If the drug war was run like a business, i.e. get results or fold, they w/have folded long ago. Fact is until you eliminate demand, you will not eliminate the supply side

Scrap
04-07-2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Actually I'd call it a weakness. They have found evidence that some people are bioloically more susceptable to drugs than others. I just never had an interest in drugs, so I never tried them. I don't think that's because I'm somehow superior to those who do, I'm just not wired that way. Bottom line however is that for whatever the reason, treatment/therapy has a MUCH higher success rate at ending recidivism than prison does. All a drug user learns in prison is how to commit worse crimes. Treatment is also MUCH cheaper than prison, which is of course why the companies that service the prison system are also some of the strongest lobbies AGAINST decriminalization. Thing is, you had the smarts not to even try drugs. Had you tried them, then it would test your weakness to them.I'm not implying that you are a superior person to those who have tried drugs, but you have been smarter on this aspect of your life. We are all told at some point that drugs are bad, and harmful. IMO, those who don't try any drugs are the one's who are making the smarter move.Some try drugs, yet know better than to let them take over their lives. In no way, can I call drug addiction a sickness. I feel sorry for those who are sick, while I find it hard to feel pity for those who have been warned of the dangers of drug usage ahead of time.

baccarat
04-07-2004, 03:13 PM
I don't view drug users as victims. They chose to shoot up and now they're addicted. I pity them but don't view them as victims of a disease(like someone with cancer). And there's already way too much money being spent oon public education. There should be a lot of reforms there, starting with the corrupt, anti-education teacher unions.

SuavePhin
04-07-2004, 03:42 PM
This might be a little extreme but why not just give drug dealers the death penalty after say a 3rd offense?? they're obviously harming/killing alot of people, just because the possible eventual death takes a little longer then murder doesn't mean they kill any less, like Muck said and i see the same thing, i really dont see where all the money going to fight the drug war has changed things for the better, comments on a drug dealer death penalty??

Scrap
04-07-2004, 03:46 PM
Duck Suave.They'll be coming at you swinging for that one.

Dajesus
04-07-2004, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by SuavePhin
This might be a little extreme but why not just give drug dealers the death penalty after say a 3rd offense?? they're obviously harming/killing alot of people, just because the possible eventual death takes a little longer then murder doesn't mean they kill any less, like Muck said and i see the same thing, i really dont see where all the money going to fight the drug war has changed things for the better, comments on a drug dealer death penalty??

Oh man was Scrap right! So by your reasoning shouldn't we kill a 7-11 employee for the 3rd time that one of his regular customers gets cancer? Or hell lets kill a member of congress everytime a drunk driver gets his 3rd DWI. Maybee we should kill employees of cigarette and alcohol distributing companies every time 3 people die from their product.

Doing drugs is a choice. I won't dismiss the possibillity of that some people may be more proon to becomeing addicted, but the first time is always a choice. Just like it is my choice if I want to go to work tomorrow. I know the consequences of either descion, and based on those consequences I decide wether or not to go. So my question to you is how is a person that sells drugs any more responsable than the person that decides to do drugs?

One more point then I am done with this post. From a pure econimic look on your solution. Do you know how much money it costs the government to put someone to death? By the end of all the apeals it tops millions of Dollars. It would always be cheaper to let them rought in jail for 80 years.

Dajesus
04-07-2004, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by baccarat
I don't view drug users as victims. They chose to shoot up and now they're addicted. I pity them but don't view them as victims of a disease(like someone with cancer). And there's already way too much money being spent oon public education. There should be a lot of reforms there, starting with the corrupt, anti-education teacher unions.

I can't beleave it is possible but this opinon is more ludacris than Suave's. To much money being spent on education? You live in Buffalo for christ sakes! I went to UB, and judegeing by all the locals I met, and the amount of ghetto's in the area I can't imagine how you can make this statement.

Anti education teacher unions?!?!? Garbage men make more money than the average teacher. Are your kids less important to you than how your garbage is handled? It is funny how these to subjects are so closely related. The biggest arguement about making drugs legal is the saying "what about the kids" IE what affect would it have on our greatest natural treasure. So, to keep drugs out of their hands they can't spend enough money. Yet I live in a state that there is an astronomical shortage of teachers because it isn't logical to spend 5 years in college at 20k a year to get out and make 20k a year. I would love to see the DEA having a bake sale to support their programs or doing car washes on the side of the street. It is a far better solution than having 12 year old kids doing the same thing so they can get new books or keep their football team.

Dajesus
04-07-2004, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Good idea, bad example. Personally, I'm in favor of decriminalizing dug USE, and legalizing marajuana. As far as pot goes, if we're going to allow cigaretts, it's just hypocracy not to allow pot. As for other drugs, treat it as a sickness, not a crime and it would DRASTICALLY reduce prison populations, and eliminate the "criminal factories" that prisons have become. Non-violent drug users go in, viloent drug users come out. Treatment facilities would be cheaper and more effective than prisons. As for Holland, yes there's little crime. But it's also has the highest per capita incidence of AIDS/STD's outside of Afica. That is NOT the model we want to emulate.

Well I don't doubt that drugs mainly herroin have something to do with that, your failing to mention that they don't have laws against prostitution. I am almost positive that prositution is among the top 3 of the GNP of holland. I would look as the cause and affect of the aids epidemic before the loose laws on drugs.

As far as muck statement that Holland is a much smaller country. It isn't based on the number of crimes it is based on a percentage. Although it doesn't eliminate your thesis as a variable it does it reduces it drasticly.

themole
04-07-2004, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by baccarat
I don't view drug users as victims. They chose to shoot up and now they're addicted. I pity them but don't view them as victims of a disease(like someone with cancer). And there's already way too much money being spent oon public education. There should be a lot of reforms there, starting with the corrupt, anti-education teacher unions.

There ya go! Nothing makes me sicker than to see a license plate with an apple on it.

themole
04-07-2004, 10:51 PM
Dejesus....This may surprise you, but I feel that whatever one decides to put into ones body is their business and no one elses. I also believe that the consequences are theirs to pay.

Before I had a family 30 yrs. ago, my idea of a good time was a bowl of Gainesville Green and a day on the St Johns River or the Matansas Inlet. Follow that up with a nite with Emmy Lou Harris or Merle Haggard and you had yourself one pleasant country boy.:lol:

Then it came time to put away childish things.

Dajesus
04-07-2004, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by themole
Dejesus....This may surprise you, but I feel that whatever one decides to put into ones body is their business and no one elses. I also believe that the consequences are theirs to pay.

Before I had a family 30 yrs. ago, my idea of a good time was a bowl of Gainesville Green and a day on the St Johns River or the Matansas Inlet. Follow that up with a nite with Emmy Lou Harris or Merle Haggard and you had yourself one pleasant country boy.:lol:

Then it came time to put away childish things.

It actully doesn't surprise me that much. It is way on the left side, but pleasent country boys usually are for less government in their lives.

I agree with your last sentance. I used many drugs in my life, but it came down to a choice of continueing a life of escaping or to chose to live my life. I don't think anyone should choose to do drugs. I have first hand expeirince, and I know they are bad umm k, but I just don't see any reason to continue to fight a losing battle. When the alternative could generate so much money for our country, while freeing up money to be spent on winnable fights.

Ok so this won't get you in to a debate, so I am moving on now. How the hell could you agree with moronic statement that enough money is already being put in to our education? We live in Florida. It is the 48th ranked state in education in the US. Yet we have a govenor that runs his campaing with the hypocritical statement that he is the "education govenor." The same govenor that has tried to cut funding for rehabs, and to prosicute drug offendors much harder than they were in the past, yet his Daughter got off scot free when she caught making her own perscriptions to obtain zanex. Florida is going through the worst teacher shortage in the Union, and classrooms are filling up to an average 43 kids per class room.

PhinPhan1227
04-08-2004, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Dajesus


I can't beleave it is possible but this opinon is more ludacris than Suave's. To much money being spent on education? You live in Buffalo for christ sakes! I went to UB, and judegeing by all the locals I met, and the amount of ghetto's in the area I can't imagine how you can make this statement.

Anti education teacher unions?!?!? Garbage men make more money than the average teacher. Are your kids less important to you than how your garbage is handled? It is funny how these to subjects are so closely related. The biggest arguement about making drugs legal is the saying "what about the kids" IE what affect would it have on our greatest natural treasure. So, to keep drugs out of their hands they can't spend enough money. Yet I live in a state that there is an astronomical shortage of teachers because it isn't logical to spend 5 years in college at 20k a year to get out and make 20k a year. I would love to see the DEA having a bake sale to support their programs or doing car washes on the side of the street. It is a far better solution than having 12 year old kids doing the same thing so they can get new books or keep their football team.


Actually, he has a point, just not the way I think you're interpreting it. America spends more money per capita on education than any other country in the world. And despite John Kerry assertions, we're spending 58% more on education NOW than we were under Clinton. The problem is HOW we spend that money. Most of it does NOT go to the teachers, most of it goes to administration. THAT'S where we need to make cuts. And he's also right about the Teachers Unions. That's not an attacj on the teachers, it's an attack on their unions which are run by a bunh of socialist ex-hippies who come up with concepts like "testing is a bad thing for kids, we should let THEM decide if they are right or wrong". Seriously, you'd be floored by some of the concepts these people come up with. The education system in America needs DRASTIC reform, not more money down the drain.

PhinPhan1227
04-08-2004, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Dajesus


Well I don't doubt that drugs mainly herroin have something to do with that, your failing to mention that they don't have laws against prostitution. I am almost positive that prositution is among the top 3 of the GNP of holland. I would look as the cause and affect of the aids epidemic before the loose laws on drugs.

As far as muck statement that Holland is a much smaller country. It isn't based on the number of crimes it is based on a percentage. Although it doesn't eliminate your thesis as a variable it does it reduces it drasticly.

Again, I'm in favor of decriminalizing the USE of drugs, and legalizing pot. While that's closer to the Dutch model than it is to ours, Holland has taken it to the extreme. Their laws are SO loose that I can actually see how it promotes drug use. Again, the cheapest and most effective solution is decriminalization. Whether you view drug use as an illness or not, it IS a treatable affliction. Throw a crack addict in a therapy program and you're accomplishing several things.

#1-He'll probably spend less time in therapy than he would in prison-less cost, and the return of a productive citizen

#2-Therapy is cheaper day to day than prison. Incarceration is INCREDIBLY expensive

#3-MUCH less chance of the person being a repeat offender-MUCH less cost because in addition to incarceration, you've also got new trials/appeals/etc

#4-MANY of those who go into prison for non-violent drug use come out violent criminals because of what they learned/had done to them in prison.-Fewer violent criminals

The only downside is that some of the far right wing wacko's have to swallow their hypocracy and deal with decriminalized drug use. Oh, and the left wing wacko's have to deal with drugs still not being legal, other than pot.

DeDolfan
04-08-2004, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Muck
But Holland is also one of the smallest countries in the world, whereas we are one of the largest. Things that work great in many countries simply cannot/do not work in this country simply due to sheer volume.

I agree that things aren't really that great as far as prevention and availability (meaning it's easy to find stuff). But I have to wonder how much more abundant the drug supply and use (along with crime rate, etc) would be without all this money that is currently being spent on the drug war. I really don't know because I have no idea what kind of results they're getting as far as seizures, arrests, etc. as a whole. But I do think about it.

Maybe it's time to do as Jessie Ventura said. Legalize the "small stuff" (marijuana), regulate it, and tax it. That way you eliminate the black market. And as long as people follow the rules (no use outside home, etc), things might be ok.

I'm not saying that's the answer. I really haven't given the topic and enormous amount of thought. And the US government historically doesn't seem to be to keen on cutting bait or admitting defeat/failure on something as publicized and backed as the drug war. But maybe it's a step in the right direction.

Also, in case this means anything, I've never once touched drugs in my life.

Eliminating the black market is a reasonable course for the "small stuff", i agree. But then we have all the hard stuff to deal with and again, the answer is to eliminate the black market. Now this may seem way extreme to some or maybe all but it would work if everyone agrees that there is a definite problem. So far, all else has failed miserably but what if the law is changed and the word gets out that anybody dealing drug illegally at any level will simply be executed for even the first attempt. Sure, it's pretty radical and maybe too extreme for most stomachs i guess, but how many executions will take place b4 the market is eliminated? Alot of dealers now operate with the notion that IF they get caught, they'll serve their time, get out and go fins their stash, even tho they're going straight after that. i'd bet that it wouldn't take too many executions b4 ppl say, screw this, it ain't worth dying for and it's done. Sure, a few ppl may die "unhumanely" in the process i suppoes but no less "unhumanely" these unfortunate addicts die. maybe it would keep alot of folks from becoming addicts in the first place.
But like i said, this is extreme perhaps, but it would work. it only depends on how much the general public would want it ot tho. ;)

Dajesus
04-09-2004, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Eliminating the black market is a reasonable course for the "small stuff", i agree. But then we have all the hard stuff to deal with and again, the answer is to eliminate the black market. Now this may seem way extreme to some or maybe all but it would work if everyone agrees that there is a definite problem. So far, all else has failed miserably but what if the law is changed and the word gets out that anybody dealing drug illegally at any level will simply be executed for even the first attempt. Sure, it's pretty radical and maybe too extreme for most stomachs i guess, but how many executions will take place b4 the market is eliminated? Alot of dealers now operate with the notion that IF they get caught, they'll serve their time, get out and go fins their stash, even tho they're going straight after that. i'd bet that it wouldn't take too many executions b4 ppl say, screw this, it ain't worth dying for and it's done. Sure, a few ppl may die "unhumanely" in the process i suppoes but no less "unhumanely" these unfortunate addicts die. maybe it would keep alot of folks from becoming addicts in the first place.
But like i said, this is extreme perhaps, but it would work. it only depends on how much the general public would want it ot tho. ;)

You would have a better chance of making all drugs legal than you would of passing your law thru congress. Even if it did it would still be alot of money to stop people from having a choice.

Dajesus
04-09-2004, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Actually, he has a point, just not the way I think you're interpreting it. America spends more money per capita on education than any other country in the world. And despite John Kerry assertions, we're spending 58% more on education NOW than we were under Clinton. The problem is HOW we spend that money. Most of it does NOT go to the teachers, most of it goes to administration. THAT'S where we need to make cuts. And he's also right about the Teachers Unions. That's not an attacj on the teachers, it's an attack on their unions which are run by a bunh of socialist ex-hippies who come up with concepts like "testing is a bad thing for kids, we should let THEM decide if they are right or wrong". Seriously, you'd be floored by some of the concepts these people come up with. The education system in America needs DRASTIC reform, not more money down the drain.

The main problem with the spending is it is not a genral fund. I was friends with a guy when I lived in Florida before that was working on a multi million dollar computer set up in the Naples public school. It was part of a program that had a PC availale for every kid in the school or 1 for every 2 kids in the school system. That is probably more money than is pumped thru the whole ft myers school district witch has probably 4 times as many students. It is fine for the govenment to put my social security in to the genral fund, but public school is done by county. It is hypocracy at its best. The rich get richer...blah blah.

PhinPhan1227
04-09-2004, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Dajesus


The main problem with the spending is it is not a genral fund. I was friends with a guy when I lived in Florida before that was working on a multi million dollar computer set up in the Naples public school. It was part of a program that had a PC availale for every kid in the school or 1 for every 2 kids in the school system. That is probably more money than is pumped thru the whole ft myers school district witch has probably 4 times as many students. It is fine for the govenment to put my social security in to the genral fund, but public school is done by county. It is hypocracy at its best. The rich get richer...blah blah.


If you're paying higher property taxes for your house, you don't think that some of that money should stay in your county for your schools? Federal money for schools is actually only a small percentage of the money that funds education, but it's the national beurocracy that gets things so messed up. That and the fact that so many parents expect the teachers to do all the work when 90% of a childs education should come from his parents.

DeDolfan
04-09-2004, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Dajesus


You would have a better chance of making all drugs legal than you would of passing your law thru congress. Even if it did it would still be alot of money to stop people from having a choice.

I agree that it would never become law. But then again, it depends on just how "severe" the problem really is. But iF it ever did, the people wouldn't have a choice since the supply would be effectively eliminated in that nobody would come close to it, let alone risking execution to distribute it. The only "choice" left would be either to simply let it go or just "WHAAAAAA"!! :D

DeDolfan
04-09-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by themole
Dejesus....This may surprise you, but I feel that whatever one decides to put into ones body is their business and no one elses. I also believe that the consequences are theirs to pay.

Before I had a family 30 yrs. ago, my idea of a good time was a bowl of Gainesville Green and a day on the St Johns River or the Matansas Inlet. Follow that up with a nite with Emmy Lou Harris or Merle Haggard and you had yourself one pleasant country boy.:lol:

Then it came time to put away childish things.


I agree..........to a point. That point is that when you put certain things into your body that causes you to do irrational things that affect others negatively, then no.

PhinPhan1227
04-09-2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Dajesus


You would have a better chance of making all drugs legal than you would of passing your law thru congress. Even if it did it would still be alot of money to stop people from having a choice.

Supreme Court would slap it down as a violation of both due process as well as cruel and unusual punishment. Aside from that it would cripple our justice system because you'd have every drug dealer in the country recieving automatic appeal to the Supreme Court. Talk about tripling the current deficit? This law would do it in one shot.

themole
04-09-2004, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan



I agree..........to a point. That point is that when you put certain things into your body that causes you to do irrational things that affect others negatively, then no.

All I ever did was POT. Its effects on me was to turn a beer guzzling smart ***, into an introspective, wine sipping, two toker:D that realized that if it was cool for my friends to follow the Guru, it was cool for me to "Blow up the TV, move to the country, try to find Jesus, build me a home". "John Prine" anyone?:lol: My gosh the music was great back then!

I do not understand WHY that stuff is illegal!:yell:

PhinPhan1227
04-11-2004, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by themole


All I ever did was POT. Its effects on me was to turn a beer guzzling smart ***, into an introspective, wine sipping, two toker:D that realized that if it was cool for my friends to follow the Guru, it was cool for me to "Blow up the TV, move to the country, try to find Jesus, build me a home". "John Prine" anyone?:lol: My gosh the music was great back then!

I do not understand WHY that stuff is illegal!:yell:

Tobacco lobby doesn't want competition.

themole
04-11-2004, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Tobacco lobby doesn't want competition.

Well actually 1227, it would be a perfect fit for them. They are already set up to market it.

Marino1983
04-11-2004, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by themole


Well actually 1227, it would be a perfect fit for them. They are already set up to market it.


Are you causing trouble AGAIN mole ????? :tongue2:

Man how you been dude ??

As for you blazing the dragon,, that explains a lot !!!! :lol:

:jk:

:m83:

Marino1983

PhinPhan1227
04-12-2004, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by themole


Well actually 1227, it would be a perfect fit for them. They are already set up to market it.

True enough, but they don't control the product the way they do tobacco. Right now they have a monopoly on legal smoking, and they want to keep it that way.

fins4o8
04-17-2004, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Tobacco lobby doesn't want competition.

actually making weed legal would help the tobacco industry. i dont know about you but a cig is good with coffee or alcohol or good 420.

a lot of tree's could be saved if weed was legal.